Today, the Spokesman-Review (the main newspaper in Spokane, Washington) covered recent developments in an ongoing battle over North Idaho libraries.
- The library system in Kootenai County pulled 140 books from its shelves to review for its adults-only room
- Can I see your ID? How Idaho libraries are responding to law on ‘materials harmful to minors’
- High school students and teachers review books the Community Library Network is considering restricting from minors
Image created in Canva
Rabble-rousers have been exploiting public ignorance for years to push their agenda in the name of "protecting children from pornography," resulting in contentious board elections and the resignation of several librarians from threats and pressure generated by these moral crusaders. Now, the Community Library Network board and administration have created rules for a segregated book collection for materials they have deemed "harmful to minors" under a very loose interpretation of a recent Idaho law.
Again, courtesy of the Spokesman-Review, here is the list of 140 titles challenged and presently withdrawn from circulation. Like the anti-gun crowd on the American left wing claims teenagers and even 20-something adults involved in gang violence are "children" when it suits their agenda, these right-wing activists claim material written for a teen and young adult audience is "targeting our children" as if libraries are shelving Playboy next to Curious George.
The Legal Debate
There are already obscenity laws with an established test stemming from the 1973 case Miller v. California. In order to be declared obscene, a work must meet all three of the following criteria (Quoted from Wikipedia):
Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Last year, the Idaho legislature passed HB 710, a bill with a bizarre blend of specific definitions and vague exceptions, leaving libraries across the state in legal limbo as they tried to determine how these laws endanger the library through legal threats and expenses. Editing even this small excerpt of the legislative text for a blog post is a pain, by the way.
18-1514. OBSCENE MATERIALS -- DEFINITIONS. The following definitions are applicable to this act:
- "Minor" means any person less than eighteen (18) years of age.
- "Nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a full opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple, or the depiction of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.
- "Sexual conduct" means any act of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, the breast.
- "Sexual excitement" means the condition of human male or female genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal.
- "Sado-masochistic abuse" means flagellation or torture by or upon a person who is nude or clad in undergarments, a mask or bizarre costume, or the condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one who is nude or so clothed.
- "Harmful to minors" includes in its meaning the quality of any material or of any performance or of any description or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse, when it:
(a) Appeals to the prurient interest of minors as judged by the average person, applying contemporary community standards; and
(b) Depicts or describes representations or descriptions of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse which are patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable material for minors and includes, but is not limited to, patently offensive representations or descriptions of:
(i) Intimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; or
(ii) Masturbation, excretory functions or lewd exhibition of the genitals or genital area.
Wow. What a list of stuff. And it would arguably ban innocent books like I Need a New Butt and even potty training board books for "nudity." But is that really the issue with any of the 140 books in question at the library? It also adds the biggest obstacle for these book ban fanatics by concluding this section with,
Nothing herein contained is intended to include or proscribe any matter which, when considered as a whole, and in context in which it is used, possesses serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors, according to prevailing standards in the adult community, with respect to what is suitable for minors.
The folks throwing a fit about books at the library have declared themselves the supreme arbiters of community standards, and insist anyone who disagrees with their assessment is actively trying to corrupt the youth. Never mind that many of the books are several years, or even decades, old at this point and have been widely accepted as having literary, artistic, political or scientific value for the intended audience. You can see the Idaho ACLU information on HB 710 here. Now, for a quick look at the contentious subject matter as described by the moral crusaders.
SEX
Sex, in any context, scares them. Never mind many kids are already having sex, or that they aren't learning about it first at the library. No, they learn about it at school and get information (misinformation?) from their peers. The library has books that gasp explain human biology and discuss these weird feelings they have that come with puberty! And often these books caution against casual sex as leading to heartbreak and health issues!
ABUSE
Books describing sexual assault or abuse are portrayed as if they endorse such behavior when in reality, the specific books in question invariably do not romanticize it, and are instead intended to help people grapple with real-world tragic and traumatic experiences all too many face in real life. But if we sweep that under the rug and hide the books, it all goes away, right?
RACISM
Democrats remind me of the boy who cried wolf, but remember how there was actually a wolf at the end? Racism is nothing like what it was 50 years ago, and activists like to accuse people of racism as a way to shut down discourse and silence their critics, but it does still lurk out there. It's also true that a lot of vulnerable people are being targeted by literal neo-Nazis eager to explain how Hitler was totally somehow a good guy. But books with any references to racism in any context are frequent targets of library material challenges.
LGBTQ
Any discussion, whether in a sex ed book or even a description of a minor background character, is apparently equivalent to hardcore porn according to the censors. Sure, many authors openly embrace everything LGBTQIA+WTFBBQ, but again, libraries aren't spearheading this, especially in the freakin' Idaho panhandle.
They don't hold drag queen storytimes, but the public library serves the entire public, including the gays and the trannys and the people who support LGBTQetc. Current books belong in the collection whether you and I agree with their worldview or not. Disagreement doesn't make those books porn.
DISRESPECT FOR POLICE
No, I'm not kidding, this is a real complaint among the books in these long lists circulating online. This back-the-blue backlash against concerns about police abuse have resulted in a knee-jerk opposition to anything which dares put police in less than reverential light.
In my opinion, this Idaho law, and similar laws in other states, are being used as a justification to hide away difficult topics their critics don't want to discuss, not because children need to be protected from smut hiding in libraries nationwide.
Protection vs. Security Theater
The local group targeting North Idaho libraries is CleanBooks4Kids. I hate to give them publicity at all, but it's only fair to see both sides of the issue. Just remember their claims about books are quite hyperbolic. The first listing included in their "Evidence" when I browsed there stated,
Monday's Not Coming by Tiffany Jackson contains violence including child abuse; excessive/frequent profanity and derogatory terms; inexplicit sexual activities; sexual nudity; sexuality; alcohol and drug use; and controversial racial commentary.
You could also check Goodreads, a review on Bustle, the breakdown by Common Sense Media, and the study guide from Litcharts for a more nuanced explanation instead of "AAAAAH! BAD BOOK! BE AFRAID!"
Note the aforementioned complaint about any discussion of race as inherently problematic, mention of sex and abuse without context for the story, and complaints about language without concern for the purpose within the story. Many teens swear. Like, a lot. When I ran a library D&D campaign, there were a few kids I had to constantly remind not to drop 'the F bomb' every other sentence. I guarantee they didn't learn to cuss like a sailor from the library, too.
The Community Library Network already had a 3-tier optional restriction for concerned parents. If they wanted their kids to have open access, no change was necessary. If parents wanted to restrict online access and the ability to borrow from the library collection, kids could be barred from borrowing books in just the adult fiction and non-fiction sections, or from both adult and Young Adult collections. This doubtless already created problems for kids who needed resources for homework, because most high-schoolers needing reference material need actual reference material, not books written for elementary students.
I can also speak from my own experience as a voracious reader well ahead of my grade level when I say most great literature and fun novels are shelved in either the non-fiction or general fiction stacks, and there's just not a lot in the kids section. Fantasy, science fiction, westerns, mysteries, and more are being walled off from readers without any regard for them.
Does this mean kids might be exposed to ideas that are good, bad, or just different? Maybe, but it is not the job of the government at any level from national to local to determine what you can allow your kids to see, and the library definitely does not contain pornography. What really riles these puritanical control freaks are books which discuss real issues kids face, and the fact that the people willing to discuss these topics most disagree about how to handle them.
The adult response is to write better books and foster open discourse. Temper tantrums, name-calling, and grabs for political power to stifle others is juvenile. If you're concerned about what your kids might read, be open to discussion. Be involved. Be a parent.
Disingenuous Dictators
From the first article linked at the top of this post, there is a stellar example of the kind of disingenuous debate tactics used by these authoritarians to justify what they are doing, and deny its nature.
Library Board Chair Rachelle Ottosen said in an email the biggest misunderstanding about the policy is that the board is banning books it doesn’t like.
“We are merely moving books within the library system that meet the legal definition of harmful to minors,” Ottosen wrote. “Moving doesn’t qualify as banning. They will still be available for adults, or parents who want them for their children. Not liking the book content does not meet the legal threshold.”
Asked if she thought there was ever any value for teenagers to grapple with mature content, Ottosen said “there is no legal justification for libraries to make pornographic materials available to minors. Parents can check out whatever books they wish, and share with their own children as they feel appropriate.”
See how she slipped away from the actual question about people disagreeing about what constitutes "harmful to minors" and immediately shifts to insisting it's all about not making porn available to kids? This is a classic example of dishonest debate.
Additionally, a press release argues this locked and restricted room is no different from other sections, collections, and spaces like the genealogy room. This ignores the obvious distinction of restricted access. He is engaging in a false equivalence here to justify this overreach, and is betraying the core principles of open access for public libraries in the process.
The precedent of allowing legislatures and library boards to censor and restrict materials is a mistake, and claiming it's all to "protect the children" and no different from other cataloguing processes is a thinly-veiled attempt to justify it as not being a book ban. However, the real consequence is banning people from access to literature and information widely considered age-appropriate. That's a book ban, plain and simple.
It's late, and I'm tired. I'm sure typos remain. I'm not even sure I've managed to make this into anything coherent. This took a lot to organize and hyperlink even to this stage, and at some point I have to decide it's done and just publish it. That time is now, at well past 1 AM Pacific. Maybe I'll edit it further tomorrow, or technically later today. If you have any comments on the topic, chime in and let's try to hash this out like adults.
It's the new way. Dislike what someone is saying or want to restrict access to information - insist that it is porn or that they are safeguarding kids. Makes my blood boil. When I was young the local library was a magical place that I could read just about anything.
The aim is always the same, struggle free discourse and discussion on "taboo" topics because then it won't exist. And of course that way you control the thoughts of the masses
It makes me nervous whenever elected people decide to take on a responsibility that belongs to parents. I accompanied my children to the library, and I knew which books they checked out and what they read. That was my responsibility. Perhaps not all parents are equally responsible, but that's no excuse for a legislature or a library board of trustees to take over.
The real irony of this whole situation is that kids and teens have access to just about any information they want to see on their computers and on their phones, including real pornography. Why lock up library books containing alleged/imagined pornography when the average kid has already seen and heard things at school and on TV that I didn't know about until I was in my 50s?